Venting: Some people are too sensitive...

[HRSegovia]

In the spirit of being oversensitive, or venting, or whatnot

People often make jokes (however grim or offensive they might be) without being paid comedians. Any many paid comedians utterly misread their audience and offend many.

People also often suggest that someone might have a psychiatric condition (OCD for example) even where they aren't qualified to do so - yet you seemed to suggest that in another thread recently (it was the one about the player who refused to engage with the rest of the group, holding back out of all combat, etc) that we refrain from such assessments unless we are qualified psychiatrists. At the time I was affronted by what I felt to be the patronizing air with which the comment was delivered (hm?) but then, I am sure that you are a paid forum moderator, and know what you are doing. And in any case, it was late and I was tired, so pinch of salt and all that.

TBH I am not too fussed; I understand we don't want to offend Eric's Grandma, and that the person described in that other thread might potentially arrive at the forums and be offended. And I agree with your general point in this thread. I am just suggesting people are allowed to have opinions, even if they aren't qualified, and indeed even where they are wrong. If people cross the line, say so, but please don't imply that we need to be paid professionals to have (informed or uninformed) opinions. This isn't a courtroom!

I'm not sure the history you and he have, but thank you for understanding where I was coming from. And you, too are correct. But I understood that he, for the most part, deals with teenagers who get brave behind a computer. Sometimes you can't help but be condescending and assume that the other party is, in fact, immature and arrogant.

Thanks again. You're awesome.

 

[HRSegovia]

1. This is going to be locked. Politics are a no-no on this board.

2. His plan was Liberia. You can read up on it. I also suggest you read Frederick Douglas's excellent eulogy to Lincoln. It is a great and insightful piece about a flawed, prejudiced, and yet truly heroic man. Douglas's nuanced thoughts about Lincoln, a man who, despite their disagreements, he came to truly respect, are pretty much required reading. They are a wonderful alternative to the glib hagiography that usually passes for analysis of Lincoln's thoughts and deeds.

You... TOO... are correct. We are not here to discuss politics. Just forum etiquette (which is quite relevant). But as for part 2 of your reply: Thank you VERY much. I'll look into it and apply it to help understand the context of what I'm reading for class.

Thank you, thank you.

 

[Janx]

It reminds me of an anthropology class I took not too long ago in which I had to remind everyone, including the professor, that the Wampanoag Indians didn't help the Pilgrims survive the winter out of the goodness of their hearts. Instead, it was a clever ploy to secure a military alliance with the guys with guns in defense against all the neighboring tribes that they'd losing wars with.

Historically speaking, is there any evidence of that? Written documents/statements from that time?

Or is it an assumption that a group of people wouldn't be nice to a bunch of hard on their luck new-comers from a strange land?

The same with Abe Lincoln. Historically speaking (not politically), are there documents indicating he had a plan (like this Liberia thing)?

Or are we assigning a motive to his actions in freeing the slaves. In assigning that motive, as I see from the previous comments, our own beliefes, politics and biases color that assumption.

I would bet that most people's historical understanding of the Emancipation Proclamation was that Abe freed the slaves, and he timed it when he did for a reason. Beyond that, most normal people don't really know the extra story. And its colored by what side of the Mason-Dixon line you grew up in.

To the OP's original point, he tried to make a joke. I suppose I might have found it funny if I didn't disagree with the point he was trying to make, or if I didn't have higher respect the man he was using in the joke.

Dark humor like that falls flat in those scenariios. Abe Lincoln and JFK are in the group of most respected US Presidents. Jokes towards them are at higher risk of failing. What did you expect?

I recommend watching the history channel's Presidents series. I thought it was a good representation. There was only 1 or 2 presidents from it who were very ill favored in it, and assuming the facts were correct, reasonably so. These were much earlier presidents, I just forget their names.

 

[Heathen72]

Sometimes you can't help but be condescending and assume that the other party is, in fact, immature and arrogant.

Yeah, you can. Or perhaps when you can't you need to step away from weblife for a while until you are ready to treat people with respect.

 

[Pbartender]

Historically speaking, is there any evidence of that? Written documents/statements from that time?

Yes, there is: Assorted history books that reference the accounts of Pilgrims and Native Americans living in the area at the time. I don't have specific references on hand at the moment, but most all history texts agree on the basics...

The Wampanoag, at the time, had been devastated by a smallpox epidemic and attacks by the Micmac from the north and the Pequots from the west. The Narragansetts hadn't been hit by the epidemic, and so became the new political power in the region. When the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth, the Narragansetts were threatening the Wampanoags and demanding tribute. Massassoit, the chief of the Wampanoags had hoped that with the Europeans' help, they would be able to make the Narragansetts back off.

Granted, whatever the reason for the the Pilgrims and the Wampanoags did get along with each other pretty well, and once the alliance was made often helped each other selflessly (the Wampanoags taught the Pilgrims to farm native crops, and the Pilgrims nursed Massassoit back health from a grave illness). The entire deal, however, was grounded in political and military reasoning, rather than altruism... that came later.

And it paid off, too, for the Wampanoags... In 1632, the Narragansett finally decided to invade Wampanoag territory. They attacked Massassoit's village and were repulsed only because the Pilgrims were there to reinforce the Wampanoag warriors.

And all credit to the Pilgrims, because they did treat their Native American fairly well, and especially in comparison to the Puritans who arrived shortly thereafter.

I think for me, the fascination was the myth paradigm... How when these sorts of idealized stories come from another culture, it's almost automatically a myth, but when it concerns our own very often it's taken as historical fact (or at least induces us to willfully ignore historical fact).

That's not to say that the myths don't necessarily have a basis in history, or that they don't still have an important lesson to teach. But I think it's just as important to understand (as well as we can, considering the vagaries of historical accounts) what really happened, rather than what we would like to have happened.

 

[Piratecat]

Closed, as per the original poster's request.